Fans get their game back

[MsStorm]

I don't understand. Were you trying to keep the story away from BigFooty? Someone would have posted it eventually. I just wanted to see what the anti-RL trolls on BF would say to some positive news like this. Turns out they ignored it entirely and went on squabbling amongst themselves. Oh well.

I just looked at bf and they did not ignore it...immediately death riding the Storm and just watch it continue.

 

[Angry_eel]

I just looked at bf and they did not ignore it...immediately death riding the Storm and just watch it continue.

I was politely arguing with them but it seems the AFL people have jumped on the Union bandwagon.

 

[MsStorm]

I was politely arguing with them but it seems the AFL people have jumped on the Union bandwagon.

Not surprised...a lot of them hate rugby league and SOME in particular hate the Storm....but suprisingly we have a lot of afl people who follow the Storm.

Monty's fault:lol:

 

[m0nty]

I just looked at bf and they did not ignore it...immediately death riding the Storm and just watch it continue.

Trolls like that zachary clown need no pretext to death ride the Storm, despite that story actually doing a lot to ensure their long-term existence. They also don't need anything in the realm of a rational argument. I'm not feeding them any ammunition.

 

[MsStorm]

Trolls like that zachary clown need no pretext to death ride the Storm, despite that story actually doing a lot to ensure their long-term existence. They also don't need anything in the realm of a rational argument. I'm not feeding them any ammunition.

I'd rather no one from this site had posted this link on bf to be honest. Someone like Beaussie would be doing it this later this morning.

 

[MsStorm]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...d-news-for-avaricious-code-20091129-jyzi.html

I think Magnay has written a great piece on this new proposed commission.
I just have some fears this may turn into a NSW feast but will reserve my judgement for a while until some more news comes about whose actually sitting on the commission.

 

[elbusto]

I'd rather no one from this site had posted this link on bf to be honest. Someone like Beaussie would be doing it this later this morning.

Why do we care what a peanut like Beaussie thinks?

 

[Quidgybo]

On the whole a very positive development. Some thoughts...

1. The clubs voting for the Commission doesn't preclude it acting independently of the clubs. The key to the Commission's independence is how long Commissioners are elected for and whether they have to continually return to the clubs to get re-elected. If the Commission has to be re-elected annually then it will be a highly politicised body closely tied to the factions that separate clubs (eg. Sydney vs non Sydney, NSW v Qld etc). If on the other hand Commissioners are elected for 5 years and don't have the option for re-election then once elected the Commissioners will be free to make independent and possibly unpopular decisions as they see fit.
2. All profits going back to clubs does not mean any profits actually going back to clubs. The Commission would have the power to decide if there is or isn't a profit. If after grants to clubs, to development, to special projects etc every cent is accounted for then no additional payouts. Will be interesting to see how this affects the ability to build a war chest or plan expenditure over a long term. If it isn't spent in any one financial year does it have to be declared as profit and given back to the clubs or can the Commission accumulate surpluses for future special projects? Could the Commission fund an AFL style "Competitive Balance Fund" that saw additional funding to strategic clubs like the Storm before the distribution of any profits?
3. The hope would obviously be that the next television contact is big enough that the increase in the grants and any additional profit distribution is such that it makes borderline teams like the Knights and Storm immediately self sustaining. In the case of the Storm there will needs to be a combination of significant central funding increases, better returns on home gates at the new stadium, increased profile in Melbourne through guaranteed television exposure in that market, and probably some cost cutting in the back office.
4. For the increase in grants and profit distribution to push most clubs into a profitable and stable financial position the increase in funding would have to significantly exceed any increase in players wages. If the increase in funding merely matches the increase in the salary cap then the present financial position where 12-14 out of te 16 clubs run at a loss will continue. To achieve any fundamental change I think the salary cap would have to be restricted to no more than 80% of the grant. So if the grant went to something like $6.5m (almost double the current $3.35m) then the Cap increase would have to be kept to $5.2m (a 27% inrease over the current $4.1m Cap).
5. The clubs would have little or no say in whether further expansion occurs. The clubs do not get a vote on every issue. Despite being elected by the clubs, once elected, the Commission is free to make independent decisions as they see fit without returning to the clubs for further approval.
6. One report says 2 new teams will be admitted in 2013, the other says no new teams before 2017. This leads me to believe neither reporter knows anything about this particular aspect and they have just thrown it in there as speculation. The correct analysis is that the Commission will examine whether expansion will increase revenue to the game, how much support each potential location would need to survive in the long term and whether that will cut into the increase in financial support for existing clubs. The Commission will examine it for the 2013 contract and again for the 2017 contract. No one has a clue at this point if they will says Yes to expansion at either or both of those times.
7. No mention of returning funds back to the grassroots in New Zealand despite the NRL pulling $20m in television revenue out of that territory annually. This absolutely must be addressed.
8. Colin Love as first Commission chairman is acceptable provided it's strictly for the two year transition period. At the end of that period, once the new structures are established, he must step aside for new blood. If it's open ended with the potential for him to rule for another 10 years then it'll just be back to the bad old days. Surprised to see talk that Gallop would be offered a three to five year contract up front. Surely the new Commission would want to offer no more than two years to get a feel for how he works under the new arrangement and then re-evaluate.
9. NSWRL, QRL and CRL to continue as independent bodies just continues the tradition of wasteful duplication of administration and the political fictionalisation. The second tier of the game (currently the NSW and Qld Cups) needs to be run with a national focus as a complement and supplement to the top tier. At the tertiary and lower levels there is no reason the individual group and district leagues can't deal with the Commission directly for funding. Of course the Commission could just reject any further funding to NSWRL, QRL and CRL and bypass them to govern the lower levels of the game directly. It'd be preferable for the game if they were subsumed gracefully rather than dragging it out to a damaging war where the grassroots was forced to take sides.
10. First and last rights to News Ltd doesn't really mean much in the big picture. Whichever consortium of television companies News Ltd aligns with will have the right to match the highest bid. But when it comes to Pay TV in Australia we're pretty much going to be dealing with News Ltd anyway. It might change which combination of Networks ultimately end up with the game on Free to Air but as long as the contract they are matching assures minimum levels of coverage and as long as the price they have to match is extortionist (from Rugby League's POV) then I don't think it matters.

Leigh.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Can someone explain to me how the Storm are still losing $6 Mil per year?

-Isnt their strip sponsorship the most lucrative in the NRL?
-They are now averaging crowds higher then some Sydney teams and have been playing in a run down stadium that surely couldnt have been charging them much for rent...
-The grant from the NRL would leave them only an $800K shortfall on Top 25 player salary each year which would surely be their biggest expense...

Where is the other debt coming from?

- Costs of admin and marketing staff? ( how much would Waldron be on?)
- Advertising & promotion ( could someone in Melbourne please explain if they actually do anything in this area??)
- Junior development ( are they going overboard signing up young interstate kids and housing/feeding them?)

What else are they spending their coin on?

 

[Goddo]

Rugby league fans= whinging merkins that are never happy no matter what changes.

I agree... its a huge step in the right direction, the game will finally have the structure needed to grow and make profit for itself, with limited influence from outside parties. Ok, it might not be perfect, but we can work on that. It is massively better than the corporation run bullsh!t we have now. FACT. So stop sooking people, chin up, the game is gainning positive momentum.

 

[chrisc101]

This is great news although my greatest concern is State or Origin. This is exactly how SOO became extinct in the AFL. We just have to be careful how this is structured into the agreement.

 

[Goddo]

I haven't read anything that suggests you are. You may be talkign to people, but I am sure they are offering amounts which won't bring Cronulla the finances they need to make it work.

Their is nothing to suggest they can turn it around. These things take time, and everything has already been cut to the bone. Having the right people is a start, but you won't know if they are the right people until a year from now.

If it all kicked off today, it would be a good 5 years before you see any money out of it. Even when it comes on tap it will only deliver $5mil a year, which is a lot, but I suspect it will all be too late.

I think you have to face the reality, unless the club goes well this season on the field and that major sponsor signs up for the full amount you need, it may be the last, as I don't see the other clubs bailing you out this time.

Yep, don't delude yourselves sharks fans... your club is still up the creek without a paddle. Yes you may have a new skipper, crew and fancy new uniforms, but the club still has massive problems. The development won't be the salvation you think it is.

The Sharks can't raise revenue to get started, so they will have to bring in a 3rd party investor to do so, which will eat into the profits big time. And the $20m debt is still there, acruing intrest, not being payed off. Sure, you consolidated it into the one loan minimising interest, but it still a huge debt which will probably sink the club.

No major sponsor means they will continue to have ballooning debt too, as they can't afford the costs of running the club. Take the rose coloured glasses off and see what is going on. I am not attacking the club, these things happen, I don't want it to be a shock when something happens.

2010 is really sink or tread water for the Sharks. Good onfield performance will see the club struggle along into 2011, and hopefully there can be progress on the development and a little of the debt payed off. A bad onfield performance and you can close the doors and put up the for sale sign.

 

[Flapper]

This is great news although my greatest concern is State or Origin. This is exactly how SOO became extinct in the AFL. We just have to be careful how this is structured into the agreement.

SOO will never go away, it's arguably the highlight of the League calendar, and unlike the AFL one, people actually care about it.

 

[Vossy]

What you beat last years in 4 weeks? Somehow I doubt that this early.

says the dogs fan, yes they have increased

I haven't read anything that suggests you are. You may be talkign to people, but I am sure they are offering amounts which won't bring Cronulla the finances they need to make it work.

its not in the media so you wouldnt hear about it, why blow your load before a deal is actually done

Their is nothing to suggest they can turn it around. These things take time, and everything has already been cut to the bone. Having the right people is a start, but you won't know if they are the right people until a year from now.

oh they are the right people, it is already evident in the way things are being done

If it all kicked off today, it would be a good 5 years before you see any money out of it. Even when it comes on tap it will only deliver $5mil a year, which is a lot, but I suspect it will all be too late.

short term pain for long term gain

it wont be too late

The Chris Anderson story? He inherited a club which had an average age of approx 28. He tried to bring youth in, when supporters weren't happy with the hard decisions he had to make, you guys punted him before he could see the fruits of his labour realised. Their is a lot more to that story that meets the eye.

tried bring in youth?

he cut all ties to all our junior teams in the shire and up'd and moved the sharks training base to a completely different area, why do you think part of the reason is that Endeavour Sports High sends most of its talent to the dragons [apart from there dragons loving coach]

yeah cut all players like campbell, treister, graham, mckenna, mellor and bring in guys like your son jarrod [:lol: what a joke], milford, wessell and tweddle..

Like what is being done? I see the Jersey novelty, but what else? Are there advertising blitz's in the shire? I can't see how your club could afford to do that considering they have cut back everything.

thats what the fans are for, you only go on what you as a dogs fan can see, i see alot of work being done to re-connect, still a long way to go

over the past year the CSSC have put in alot of hours to help the club re-connect with the fans of the shire

its going to be alot of work to re-connect with the fans who felt disenchanted after the chris anderson reign, slap in the face is one way to put it

over on Sharks Forever, the club have even put someone there to work with the fans, answer questions, take ideas..no point having a fan base if you are not going to use it

I think you have to face the reality, unless the club goes well this season on the field and that major sponsor signs up for the full amount you need, it may be the last, as I don't see the other clubs bailing you out this time.

:crazy: whats new, someone else wants us kicked out of the comp..

 

[chrisc101]

SOO will never go away, it's arguably the highlight of the League calendar, and unlike the AFL one, people actually care about it.

That is not the point. The clubs cannot get too much say into SOO as they are conflicted and will be self serving. Then you will end up with players not being available etc which then leads to it being a non event. It is the show piece and therefore must be protected.

 

[Jankuloski]

I was suruprised today when I googled the population of Cronulla...

There's a lot of talk about a team relocating - what does that exactly mean? The new club keeps the name or they keep the management, players?

That is not the point. The clubs cannot get too much say into SOO as they are conflicted and will be self serving. Then you will end up with players not being available etc which then leads to it being a non event. It is the show piece and therefore must be protected.

Let's assume you're right and the clubs are the only ones who decide about every last thing. Remember that they also share the profits when the year is done. Now tell me - which club would throw away three games of packed stadiums, and massive ammounts of money generated to play an extra three rounds? Clubs cannot function week in and week out all year around. That is why test series exist - clubs get their breather, the game earns a lot of money which filters back into clubs, they get their star players promoted etc.

 

[Quidgybo]

There's a lot of talk about a team relocating - what does that exactly mean? The new club keeps the name or they keep the management, players?

It can mean multiple things. Either the existing company that holds the NRL franchise can move their operations to a different location meaning all personnel, sponsorships, contracts etc largely continue. In this case, given it's the same company, it would retain rights to the trading name and so could continue to call itself the Sharks or Bears or whatever. Alternatively, the company can sell its NRL franchise to another company who chooses to trade in a different location. In this case the new franchise holder may choose to offer contracts to some or all of the existing personnel but is generally under no obligation to do so. And while a sale might include the existing trading name it's possibly a totally new identity could be adopted. Finally the existing company could fold completely, surrendering its franchise back to the NRL who can then re-issue it to another company in a different location. In this case, it's almost inevitable a new identity would be adopted and few, if any, of the previous administration staff would be taken on although some of the players (who are obviously all now free agents) could still be recruited.

Leigh

 

[babyg]

My initial feelings of exitement, joy and positivity have somewhat died down. Thoughts:

Storm need to engage the Melbourne public somehow in this sale not gift it to a bunch of businessmen (like Ribot) for a dollar.

We don't need a second Brisbane team but that's what I'm feeling, If the clubs are winging about $6 to the Storm, what chance to Perth have. Unfortunate.

Where is grass roots funding for NZ.

Bring it on!

 

[Perth Red]

Couple of things....
SOO has the POTENTIAL to earn clubs between $250-500k each. I doubt they will want to see the back of it!

secondly everyone assumes Perth will need the same financial resource that Melbourne has needed (and like a previous poster I'd love to know how the heck the Storm actually can be over spent by that much). With no pokies and increased costs to market the game to an AFL area I accept we may need some extra assitasnce but if it is anything like $6mill a year I'd be the first to say Perth shouldn't have a team. If we can get over 15,000 crowds and the game on live FTA in WA I'm confident we could mostly stand on our own two feet.

 

[nyx]

This is the best news I've heard in a very long time.